On Monday, 17 July 2017 at 23:26:18 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Actually, I don't really care enough about this issue to want
it to be implemented one way or another, as long as there is
*some* way to annotate a non-returning function.
But the point is that so much time and effort is being spent on
discussing and designing a feature that you have admitted
yourself to be "rarely used". As a disinterested bystander I
find it somewhat amusing (and sad) to see so much
over-engineering of an overly-complex system involving a new
basic type in the language, which in turn entails all sorts of
corner cases in how it will interact with existing types and
constructs, not to mention the implementation complexities that
will be involved to pull it off -- all for what? Just to be
able to say "function F doesn't return". Seems like
disproportionate effort for only marginal returns (har har).
I can't agree more. This is textbook procrastination and
bike-shedding [1]!
There are dozens of open regressions that could have fixed or
great, stalled PRs that could have been reviewed.
In fact if only PRs would be as heartily reviewed as the
discussion here, things like the fact that DMD leaks all symbols
when imported selectively [2] would have been uncovered earlier.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality
[2]
https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/5584#issuecomment-314910297
